Smithy: Okay. You’re claiming that the SECOND letter was not photocopied in the newspapers. I see. And your proof is that Graysmith said so in the Yellow Book. I see. Even though, as Morf himself recently posted, the first letter most definitely was. Even though Graysmith claimed in the Yellow Book that it wasn’t.

I see.

What’s the difference between a period, and a colon, by the way? There are circle periods in that first letter.

So, the grand total of all the evidence that proves the Zodiac undoubtedly wrote the message on the car door is the difference between a period, and a colon.

I see. You think you’re exasperated? I’ve been desperately trying to find out if there’s any evidence linking Zodiac to the Lake Berryessa attack, and all I get is an exasperated reliance on Robert Graysmith’s Yellow Book and a condescending lecture on the distinction between a period and a colon.

Is that it? Anyone else? Anyone? Any evidence at all? No? That’s unfortunate. I really, really could have used some.

Smithy:

My question was simply, is there ANY other EVIDENCE besides the possible match of the handwriting? Whether someone could have copied it or not, is there ANYTHING else linking the Zodiac letters to the Berryessa attack?

Not in terms of concrete evidence, but the Lake Berryessa attack occurred on September 27th 1969 and the Dripping Pen Card and 340 Cipher was received on November 8th 1969, 42 days later. His Lake Berryessa attack was undoubtedly his most ‘theatrical performance ‘ to date and may have received a ‘special’ place within his letters. Of course there is still a possibility that if and when the 340 Cipher is decoded, it may reveal details or reference to this attack. However he does write Sept on this correspondence, just like the car door. The months he wrote are also a good correlation, December – 2 murders, July – 1 murder, September- 1 murder, October – 1 or 2 murders (if you include Riverside). Up to the 340 Cipher it was suspected the Zodiac Killer had committed 5 murders. He had 12 months to pick from, but he selects 4 in correct chronological order, starting with ‘Des’, with just the one or two murders in August unaccounted for. His selection of these months is not random and one can reasonably state, that his reference to Sept, is likely his reference to the Berryessa attack.
This is a link within his letters, other than handwriting, but again it is subjective, you either believe Sept to mean Berryessa or you don’t.
The reference to ‘By Knife’ in his possible Halloween Card also tallies with the writing on the car door.

He did write "Sept" in that correspondence…just like the car door, BUT he also wrote "Aug"….NOT on the car door.

So:

1) The real Zodiac did not write on the car door
2) The real Zodiac lied about August
3) The real Zodiac did kill in August…just forgot or didn’t write it on the car door for whatever reason–and forgot he didn’t write it on the door.

IF Zodiac did really kill in August–and IF the LB guy was not Zodiac, it would make sense August was NOT on the car door.

And is Zodiac taking credit for something so far-fetched? Not that the word "Sept" is actually taking credit for something. And ultimately this is the ONE crime he never truly "takes credit" for. The other crimes he practically shouts out his "this was me, this is how I did it, and this is how I know—publish it and tell the world about me".

Smithy: Okay. You’re claiming that the SECOND letter was not photocopied in the newspapers.

Stating that as a fact, yes. You can’t disprove that fact with "evidence" to the contrary then, from a newspaper? Bummer.

Edwin Alford Jr wrote about methods of disguising handwriting in October 1970, having done a statistical survey about it. He listed:
"change of slope, spacing, size, the use of awkward hand, handprinting, arrangement, change of angularity, deceptive spelling, altered approach and terminal strokes, alteration of upper and lower extensions, capital and lower case letter forms, the “i” dot or period, and handwritten numbers."
(Richard Hoffman? Let’s reflect on his spelling for a second? Or not. And Sherwood Morrill? He would have recognised pretty much immediately that the writing in the letters was disguised.)
Anyway, those are still used as the definitive categories; everything that comes afterward talks about the same general areas.

There are many preceding texts, but the best known is probably that of good old John J. Harris:
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwester … ntext=jclc
See that? That particular bit about the "schoolgirl" dots? Well, well.

So it’s a "usual" characteristic in handwriting disguise – this drawing little circles. Especially among people who know about this sort of thing. People who study it maybe, or write about it themselves, or get paid to investigate it. Or go to libraries to get a book out about how to do it (while collecting other books on how to make bombs or create ciphers.) Or copycats, I suppose. (Though I don’t really think so.)
The person who wrote this stuff took great pleasure in cocking a snook (ha! See what I did there?) at the people who he knew would read it. What a laugh! It’s almost like he intentionally used all the techniques he could, at one time or another. Tongue in cheek, ya think? Well maybe.

Yes. Even On The Door.

Re: "trying to find out if there’s any evidence linking Zodiac to the Lake Berryessa attack" – well, that’s a whole different thing.

Heh. Never thought about misspelling as a means to disguise your actual handwriting. But it does make sense. If you intentionally misspell a word, there’s a piece of artifice right there compared to your natural style.

For what it’s worth I do think Z’s misspelling is intentional (well, most of the time I think so, anyway). And if it is, the last person I would be looking for is someone who was a terrible speller.

A certain cop who had trouble in that department strikes me as a bit dyslectic, perhaps. Though I’m certainly no expert there. Alternatively he wasn’t good with a typewriter. Several of his mistakes are either omissions (failed to press the key) or those "teh" instead of "the" things (I’m sure there’s a name for it). Typos more than anything, in other words.

Norse – yes, DIckie Hoffman I think you mean, as I reflected on for a second? Report here (well, that is, part of one.)
http://www.zodiackiller.com/DFR5.html
Terrible speller. And "writter". Murderer? Well…. There are other threads.

That’s the one, Smithy – yes.

"…reconized by writter…" First one could be writen…I mean written off as a typo (didn’t hit the key type of…typo). Second one, though. That’s worse. Double consonants = an issue for a certain other writter, no question about it. But on the whole, and in all seriousness, I don’t get a Z feeling from Hoffman’s spelling. It’s not the same thing. Whether it’s because Z is faking it – or whether he has a different sort of spelling problem, I don’t know. But I don’t think the two writters writs badly in the same fashion – at all.

He doesn’t drop his "e’s". Quite common I’m sure. Too bad some of these guys didn’t get the typists to write them up like with other reports.

I know that’s what a lot of people on here claim. They’ve studied the case for years, but until I pointed out just a couple of days ago that the FBI report of October 23 clearly states that no print from any crime scene or letter matches any other, they didn’t know that. Until I pointed out that the Times-Herald had printed the entire first letter, including the symbol, on the front page August 4, they didn’t know that, either.

Maybe you should say "some" didn’t know that.

Most of us are well aware prints from the different crime scene and letters have never matched. If they did, we all wouldn’t be having a lot of these conversations!

And of course many of us were aware of the letter to the Vallejo Times Herald with a copy of the actual letter in it. It was simply forgotten–I thank you for reminding us. Zamantha had shared that later publicly a long time ago (at the old site) and of course it may have been mentioned and/or shown elsewhere too.

So thanks for your input, but…

I would go so far as to say "most" of us knew this, especially those who’ve been following this case for years and even decades. If this Bill is so informed and well-researched he’d know that both topics have been brought up before. There is so much information to this case, and so much deciphering as to what’s indeed factual (thanks Graysmith) that some of the stuff gets buried. Bill appears to be yet another poster who is more interested in being an antagonistic know-it-all, than in researching and analysis. I’ve seen his kind before on here.

Just a little thing – before I forget it – regarding the connection between LB and the rest of the series.

This is by no means conclusive, it’s tenuous enough even – but still: the LB killer had low cut army type boots or work boots. This we can gather both from BH’s description and the infamous Wingwalker prints.

The man observed by Don Fouke had "possibly low cut" shoes. This just struck me: you don’t describe any kind of shoes as "low cut", do you? Some shoe types ARE low cut and don’t come in any other form. You wouldn’t say that someone was wearing "low cut brogues" or "low cut oxfords", because there are no hi-top version of these shoes. And you certainly don’t say that someone "possibly" was wearing low cut shoes of any old kind. The "possible" to me indicates that he might have been wearing hi-tops of some kind, with the upper part concealed by his pants.* So, to my thinking, Fouke’s observation MAY indicate that the man he encountered was wearing the same sort of shoes worn by the LB killer: low cut military style boots or work boots of some kind.

* To be clear: it indicates that the kind of shoes he had on come in both high and low cuts, like army boots do.

Might mean nothing – but it is at least a possible connection.

On a side note, looking at the LB sketch (not Graysmith’s drawing, the one done by someone in LE with notes on it, based on BH’s description): the attacker had "bloused" trousers. This is a very noticeable feature, I think. It goes well with heavy footwear, often used by outdoorsy types (and people in uniform, of course). But this feature is not mentioned by any of the three girls who may or may not have witnessed Z hours before the attack. Might not mean anything either – but it’s worth pointing out.

The three girls describe – as I see it – a fairly neat sort of person. He’s even described as good looking. The attacker, on the other hand, looked downright shabby according to BH. Not mutually exclusive, I know. The first guy could have been good looking, yet – sort of – shabbily dressed. Or Z could have changed his clothes – or the way he wore these clothes. The possibilities are many. But it’s a fact that none of the girls mention bloused trousers.

The latter as a side note – nothing to do with door writing, I know.

Once again I’ve been reading old threads on Tom Voigt’s archived board – and once again I found something very interesting.

I don’t have the necessary files at the ready, so I haven’t been able to confirm this – but it would appear that Z’s symbol was not printed in any paper until after Stine. It was described in various ways (crosshairs, cross within a circle, etc.) but it was not printed as an illustration, i.e. the parts of the letters which were printed in the form of photos did not include his full signature with the symbol. The latter would actually indicate that this was something the police held back, which is interesting in itself.

But. If this is indeed the case – if the symbol was not printed, only described in words – this would seem to have some bearing on the LB conundrum. If you are a copycat who have read about Z in the papers and only READ about his signature mark, not actually seen it – how likely is it that you manage to reproduce it flawlessly? A reticule or crosshairs – or a crossed circle, or a circle with a cross in it – is not normally depicted as a cross which extends beyond the circle, which Zodiac’s does.

Again IF it is indeed the case that the symbol was not printed in the form of an illustration prior to LB, then one might claim that there was indeed an element to the crime which would not have been known by a possible copycat – namely the symbol which appears on the car door in exactly the form Z uses for his other known signatures.

This is NOT my idea – all credit to the members of the old TV board. And if it has all been cleared up and debunked already (i.e. if it has been shown that the symbol WAS printed prior to LB), then I apologize.

I think they just didn’t realize at the time the symbol, and entire letter was printed in the Vallejo paper – August 4, 1969. Here is the last part of the article showing it:

The entire link is here: (see Aug. 4, 1969)

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=165&start=10

Tahoe: Thanks!

Is that what was actually printed in the VTH on Aug 4th? If so, this entire idea goes straight out the window.

Was the same photograph of the letter (including the symbol) printed in the SF papers?

If it was printed in its entirety, symbol and all, those guys in the original TV board thread must have been less than well informed. Not saying they weren’t. But the issue seemed real enough back then. I’m just surprised that they would have overlooked something as obvious as this.

Sure Norse!

I do not believe it was published in any S.F. newspaper.

It would have been an easy item to overlook I suppose. I just shared that one portion of the article–there was more to it. Zam copied the whole thing which one can read in the link above.

Thanks again, T.

Well, it was a nice theory – but them’s the breaks.

Yeah, the symbol was printed in the paper – it says so earlier in the thread.

… in one of the textbooks about handwriting disguise (was it Springer or Koppenhaver or W. Harrison? I don’t know – it was one of them) they talk about zoned letters and slant and size and stuff, but also about using circular periods….

Found it. Was I the only one looking? Perhaps I was! Damn! Well, we all need a hobby.
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwester … ntext=jclc
There. John J. Harris. It’s worth reading – even this little excerpt’s good.
This is the handbook that smart policemen and fledgeling forensic technicians would have been perusing in the 50’s and 60’s.
There’s a better one which was released in 1970, which has even more recognisable "techniques" in it.
Oh! Of course smart criminals would have read it too. If you happen to believe that The Evile Zodiace was a smart criminal, that is.
(Did the guy spend all the time between vicious crimes in the library, studying bomb-making, ciphers and What-News-Editors-Want? Hmm.)

Anyway, what I’m trying to say is that if someone wanted expert advice on how to disguise their handwriting they’d use some of the techniques the book mentions. Indeed, "Lo and behold!" – it certainly seems our letter-writer uses damn-near ALL of them at one time or another, it’s been suggested. Even "upside-down" writing. No, it’s not a coincidence.

The car door, then!
The car door contains one immediately recognisable techinique "for handwriting disguise" which was known and talked about in educated document-examination circles of the time, then. That there colon. And (bonus!) it was also used – occasionally – in other (unpublished) letters.
I would tend to believe that Sherwood Morill would have recognised that. At least I would like to.

It’s almost like another of the writer’s little taunts isn’t it – using techniques he knew the police would recognise? What a rotter.
Am I repeating myself? Apologies if I am.